What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under
water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under
water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

New continental landmasses bearing new mountain rose while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then
drained off the emerging continents. That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges.

Where was all of this water before the flood? Did it just appear from nowhere? If the continents had to rise in order to accommodate all of this extra
water, wouldn't that mean the world was flooded even before the flood happened? Water doesn't just appear out of nowhere to cover the entire world,
that flood water had to come from somewhere, no?

What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under
water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

New continental landmasses bearing new mountain rose while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then
drained off the emerging continents. That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges.

edit on 22-11-2013 by
RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

Im gonna have to remember to quote you from now on so people can see what you edited...

Thats quite the different explanation from what you had originally...

The only problem is, mountian don't rise and fall enough to accomdate that amount of water in such a short period of time... I assume your
explanation for that is... God did it

Where in the world are you getting this stuff from? Not from the bible obviously, or history.

So you're telling me that water that is turned into steam somehow creates more water after it condensates? So if I go into my kitchen right now and
boiled one cup of water until it was all steam and captured that steam, it would somehow magically turn into two cups of water through condensation?

Again, there is a significant difference between Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. There is no scientific evidence for a world wide
flood, or that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago, so these become philosophical arguments -- could God have created the world in six
days 6,000 years ago, with things like the fossil record or the age of the universe set as part of that creation.

That's a very specific version of creationism you're arguing against there, and is not what all creationists believe......is it

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the scientific study of pattern, and whether such a pattern exists, regardless of its source. It uses
the scientific method and rational examination of complex systems and organisms, it does not refer to the Bible or any other "sacred text" as
evidence of anything. Here's what they have to say about it:

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a
few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no
commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the
"apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance
and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists,
mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael
Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University.
(Source)

Now, you can complain about that all you want, but that is their stated position.

And there's the cheap labcoat I was talking about.....or at least one of them. It's taken from a 2002 article, 3 years before the 2005 Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple
itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"

Do you really think people like Michael Behe, Scott Minnich or William Dembski would consider anything other than the biblical god as the agent of
design?

I can understand your need to remove yourself from certain literal interpretations of the bible, afterall it makes claims that couldn't possibly be
true and are incredibly silly and you want to keep you're beliefs as sane as possible. But if you think science can confirm any of the supernatural
events described in the bible, in any way, then you're calling on a creator and are thus a creationist.

Where did all the water come from Rev? If you believe that condensation makes more water than the original amount, what makes you think that picture
can't be possible? I mean, god is god, he could make a sheer wall of water if he wanted to, right? Just like he could double or even triple the
amount of water after condensation like you seem to believe.

Except, those things are ridiculous and not based on science in any way, just like a great flood. The water had to come from somewhere or go somewhere
you know, it couldn't have just popped in or out of existence like you seem to believe.

Based on the lack of evidence for 'creationism' or anything 'supernatural' and the lack of work and/or breakthroughs in that area....ever

So if his credentials are unquestionable, then he is a scientist..so what's wrong?

He works in forest and environmental sciences, not biology, not evolution and not theology.....so why would he be an authority on those issues?

It was a claim to authority that you made and keep making wasn't it?

edit on 23-11-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

Oh I see, one must be a Biologist for you to think they are real scientists...ok.

Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals.

Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Behe's ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria.
Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year.

Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research.

OK, I threw Behe out there, not tell us now, the objections you have with Behe. He's a scientist per your parameters, he is a Biologist, and he is
well-known. So come, give us the objection to Behe now.

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for
Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation
of design and natural selection in protein structures.

OK, see, this is what they do, "Nope, a scientist is this" so give them scientist..."Nope, a scientist must be qualified"..give them qualified
scientist"..."Nope, a scientist must do this certain thing"...give them a scientist that does certain thing..."Nope not a qualified scientist even
though he follows my set of parameters I have set up, because I don't want to see those qualified scientists at all, even though I defined them as
qualified in the first place"

Tell us, a scientist is only a scientist because he says what you want him to? Is that how science works? You throw out what makes a scientific
experiment work if it leads away from evolution...that's not scientific, now is it.

I threw Behe out there, now watch the criticism against his work...and he's a PhD in Biology. He fits your parameters so you can't toss him out,
according to your own parameters. But watch, here it comes....

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.